smiles: Will prepare for end of the month, with input from Paolo on inconsistencies with DM, from Stian on inconsistencies with PROVO

15:19:09 [tlebo]

+1 @macted, we should stick to eggs and unchewed gum.

15:19:33 [smiles]

MacTed: express examples in terms of real world things, as expiry and change over time unclear with current examples

15:19:57 [MacTed]

Zakim, mute me

15:19:57 [Zakim]

MacTed should now be muted

15:20:14 [smiles]

Luc: three proposals circulated, second and third had support

15:20:56 [smiles]

... first did not have consensus, cannot be adopted, so will try to change and discuss

15:21:11 [GK]

q+ to say I think a concrete example for wanting prop 1 would help

15:21:21 [smiles]

... can incorporate second, third proposal in editors draft, can raise issues against in tracker in usual way

15:21:27 [Luc]

ack mac

15:21:46 [smiles]

GK: First proposal needs motivating example

15:21:57 [GK]

ack gk

15:21:57 [Zakim]

GK, you wanted to say I think a concrete example for wanting prop 1 would help

15:22:21 [dgarijo]

+q

15:22:21 [GK]

I'm hearing, but see chat if you can't hear me

15:22:32 [Luc]

we can't hear you

15:22:44 [smiles]

GK: <some random sounds>

15:22:50 [GK]

Yes

15:23:03 [GK]

Well, that was it -- a concrete example that shows...

15:23:14 [GK]

... why it's useful to have entioty expiration.

15:23:28 [smiles]

Luc: Are examples in proposal not satisfactory?

15:23:31 [GK]

I didn't find them compelling ... need to rechack.

15:23:51 [Luc]

ACCEPTED: to rename wasStartedBy(activity,activity) in wasStartedByActivity(activity,activity)

15:23:54 [Zakim]

-GK

15:24:06 [Luc]

AcceptED: to formulate start and end of activities independently of responsibility and agents. Hence, start and end of activity would no longer be a form of activity association. Instead of an agent, an optional entity trigger would be allowed.

... New structure reflects discussion on list, please look at it and raise objections

15:26:59 [Zakim]

+??P62

15:27:10 [GK]

To follow up my previous comment, the examples given explain what might trigger an expiration assertion, but do not explain why this is useful or needed for provenance (i.e. assertions about things that have happened - if the provenance is asserted, then presumably referenced entities existed at that time - if they disappeared later, is that really something we need to know?)

15:27:15 [kai]

zakim, ??P62 is me.

15:27:15 [Zakim]

+kai; got it

15:27:23 [smiles]

... Quotation / orginal source controversy - could not see where distinction is

... Not everything in collections draft is uncontroversial but getting there

15:34:42 [khalidbelhajjame]

@smiles, do you intend to speak about collections in the primer?

15:35:08 [Luc]

q?

15:35:27 [smiles]

... New pieces in BNF for optional arguments, impact on PROVN examples

15:35:33 [Luc]

q?

15:37:22 [Luc]

q?

15:37:28 [smiles]

Paolo: should be pedagogical text on collections in primer

15:37:47 [Luc]

q?

15:38:14 [smiles]

Luc: Finished agenda, but useful to discuss expiry

15:38:33 [MacTed]

Zakim, unmute me

15:38:33 [Zakim]

MacTed was not muted, MacTed

15:39:23 [GK]

I can hear OK, but not speak

15:39:34 [GK]

To follow up my previous comment, the examples given explain what might trigger an expiration assertion, but do not explain why this is useful or needed for provenance (i.e. assertions about things that have happened - if the provenance is asserted, then presumably referenced entities existed at that time - if they disappeared later, is that really something we need to know?)

MacTed: An entity has internal integrity solidified by attributes which are immutable, depending on timeslice

15:54:37 [smiles]

... e.g. a table is an entity which is a timeslice of the wood comprising it

15:55:01 [Luc]

q?

15:55:04 [GK]

I *would* see some point if there were an action that "expired" an entity.

15:55:05 [khalidbelhajjame]

q+

15:55:09 [jcheney]

@MacTed, please raise issues against semantics if what is there is unclear or could be improved

15:55:20 [smiles]

Luc: Do not want unbounded discussion, so need prepration, proposals

15:55:35 [GK]

The problem is I don't oppose this idea, just don't support it :)

15:55:43 [Luc]

q?

15:56:13 [smiles]

Luc: Can MacTed, others formulate notion of end of lifetime in your terms?

15:56:26 [khalidbelhajjame]

-q

15:56:32 [Paolo]

q+

15:57:00 [GK]

I think the onus is on those who think the concept is useful to come up with compelling examples.

15:57:20 [GK]

They didn't compel me.

15:57:29 [Luc]

q?

15:57:29 [khalidbelhajjame]

+q

15:57:30 [Curt]

I agree - they are not compelling

15:57:41 [Luc]

ack kh

15:57:54 [GK]

... the examples given explain what might trigger an expiration assertion, but do not explain why this is useful or needed for provenance (i.e. assertions about things that have happened - if the provenance is asserted, then presumably referenced entities existed at that time - if they disappeared later, is that really something we need to know?)

15:58:21 [smiles]

khalid: Do we need notion of destroy/expire in any application?

15:58:40 [MacTed]

if a Great Master's painting (original canvas) is burned in a museum fire, this is important knowledge when it apparently surfaces later at auction...

15:58:48 [Curt]

I've got to go, but I'll think about this some more...

15:58:52 [Luc]

q?

15:58:54 [Zakim]

-Curt_Tilmes

15:58:56 [GK]

I see here there's a weak consensus for leaving expiration as proposed. Nobody opposed it, just lots of people didn't care.

15:58:58 [Zakim]

-olaf

15:59:01 [MacTed]

(concrete, real world, not rotten eggs...)

15:59:40 [smiles]

Paolo: Will come up with a couple more examples, seems odd to express only one end of timeslice

16:00:03 [Luc]

q?

16:00:11 [Luc]

ack paolo

16:01:00 [GK]

@paolo I mentioned earlier that if there were a specific activity-related event that causes an entity toi be invalidated, that would make sense.